Re: Critique of Research Fortnight article on RCUK policy proposal

[Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

    Prior AmSci Topic Thread (started September 16, 2005):
    "Critique of research Fortnight article on RCUK policy proposal"
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4761.html

                    AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

                    Stevan Harnad

This is a critique of the following unsigned article that has just
appeared in Research Fortnight (the second if its kind):

http://www.researchresearch.com/getPage.cfm?pagename=RFEdition&ElementID=33310&lang=EN&type=10.03&Issue=10.03

    "The Dangers of Open Access, RCUK Style"
    Unsigned Article, Research Fortnight:

> "Research Fortnight does not publish learned journals and has no reason
> to defend commercial publishers, but the publishers are right when they
> say that self-archiving as proposed by Research Councils UK will stop
> new journals being launched and cause existing journals to close."

Someone evidently has Research Fortnight's unsigned article's author's ear
(and it's certainly not your humble archivangelist):

> "Stevan Harnad, professor of cognitive science and one of the most vocal
> advocates of open access, believes the UK in not maximising the benefits
> of its research spend. In his words: 'the UK is losing �1.5 billion
> annually, in the potential impact of its scientific research spending.'
> 
> "His argument, set out in a recent paper, goes like this: self-archiving
> increases citation impact by between 50 and 250 percent; the UK research
> councils spend �3.5 billion annually; so far only 15 per cent of
> researchers self-archive, meaning another 85% could; therefore 50% x
> �3.5.bn x 85% = �1.5.bn.
>
> "This argument is so ludicrous it would be a waste of space bothering to
> knock it down."

In place of this risibly unnecessary knock-down counter-argument, 
we accordingly have this:

> "What is interesting, though, is that Harnad's paper has been
> self-archived on the University of Southampton's own e-print site and
> shows no signs of having been peer-reviewed or published elsewhere."

It is interesting that a transparent match-box calculation whose outcome
seems to be uncongenial to some ears is discounted by our anonymous author
for not having been "peer-reviewed." One wonders if, following the same
logic, Research Fortnight would have discounted the following unrefereed
observation:

    "Prior (published) evidence has shown that placing unused batteries
    (cost, �1 apiece) in the refrigerator increases their hours of usage
    by 50%, but only 15% of users refrigerate them. We accordingly point
    out here the following match-box calculation: The 85% of battery-users 
    who are not refrigerating their batteries are losing 50p's worth of
    potential usage, hence 50p's worth of value for their money."

Ludicrous? In need of peer review? A waste of space to bother refuting? Or
dismissed only as a consequence of having listened only to the
battery-makers who say that self-refrigerating "will stop new
battery-makers being launched and cause existing battery-makers to close"?

> "This demonstrates one of the problems of a switch to open access
> publishing: the pollution of the corpus of scholarship by papers that
> have not been subject to sufficient quality control."

Is Research Fortnight having difficulty distinguishing between research
content and trivial, transparent arithmetic? And does the ironic call for
"peer review" come from Research Fortnight or the disgruntled
battery-makers to whom they have lent their ear, monaurally? (Should the
statement "the publishers are right when they say that self-archiving as
proposed by Research Councils UK will stop new journals being launched and
cause existing journals to close" likewise have been subjected to peer
review?)

> "It also shows that advocates of open access have not thought through
> their arguments."

I leave it to the Forum to decide who is not thinking arguments through,
or even listening to them disinterestedly.

(The rest of the unsigned Research Fortnight article is an echolalic
transcript -- uncritical and unfiltered -- of the by now very familiar
arguments we have kept hearing from certain (non-research) lobbyists
against OA and self-archiving, with no sign of having been thought through
[let alone peer-reviewed] by Research Fortnight, or anyone else.)

My advice to Research Fortnight, if it has any wish to play the role of
honest broker in this important issue for research and researchers: Audi
Alteram Partem. So far, Research Fortnight has failed deplorably in that
role, twice.

Stevan Harnad
Moderator, American Scientist Open Access Forum
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html

Chaire de recherche du Canada
Centre de neuroscience de la cognition (CNC)
Universit� du Qu�bec � Montr�al
Montr�al, Qu�bec,  Canada  H3C 3P8

Professor of Cognitive Science    
Department of Electronics and Computer Science     
University of Southampton         
Highfield, Southampton
SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM
harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/